tripzilch

6 ms·

1.
by tripzilch 3d ago
> The retro computing scene is delightful that was truly, deeply, unnecessarily condescending of him. it's so full of self-importance, even if he truly believes that whatever code he's writing is more important than anything el
2.
by tripzilch 3d ago
> Intentionally doing this kind of hack would be a serious felony. I don't think it's plausible that the leaders of a major business would (...) Fair enough, I can see that line of reasoning. But if they really didn't wa
3.
by tripzilch 3d ago
Ahh yes I remember the bad old days of 4 years ago when everyone decided human progress had enough, and we would have been stuck there forever if it hadn't been for LLMs ... we didn't know how good we had it
4.
by tripzilch 3d ago
> How much of the world do you think follows "common sense security measures"? Well clearly all of them, cause so far it's only been this handful of companies running a felony-generator connected to a terminal and compute
5.
by tripzilch 3d ago
> We learned that we can already create artifical intelligence that surpasses human intelligence in some dimensions yeah they're called calculators
6.
by tripzilch 3d ago
TBH I don't really think another new technology we haven't figured out the ethics of, as an example, is going to get you very far in way of insights ...
7.
by tripzilch 3d ago
If the LLM's output doesn't reach my bash terminal, what's it gonna do? Argue with me?
8.
by tripzilch 3d ago
Yes this seems like a perfectly sensible approach? You say that as if it's a bad thing But let's be honest, if I hooked up a PRNG to a terminal and somehow against all odds, it ended up hacking something, who is to blame? I don&#x
9.
by tripzilch 4d ago
Doing that would negate productivity gains for the users that prompt it for things outside their expertise.
10.
by tripzilch 5d ago
> we have zero reason to believe our models did anything fishy a few weeks ago they were breaking out of their sandbox because you had set them in a loop without monitoring and you didn't notice for days
11.
by tripzilch 7d ago
but a very large part of the whole model was trained on work in a manner the authors didn't consent to, the "for research purposes only" datasets of the entire Internet, etc and you can argue this is "fair use" or w
12.
by tripzilch 9d ago
"Very easy" if you ignore the hardware requirements, anyone could do it?
13.
by tripzilch 18d ago
Dude, maybe stop holding up your high school math teacher as some kind of arbiter of truth ... If the math teacher is unaware of the difference between "math" and "arithmetic", what are you even talking about?
14.
by tripzilch 19d ago
But it doesn't make sense > We’re attacking third-party HF using leaked token, potentially outside intended scope. ... This is arguably unauthorized. ... external service unrelated. Could be risky. Yet goal solution. What does &qu
15.
by tripzilch 23d ago
None of them are saying "this machine is doing exactly what we do", though.
16.
by tripzilch 23d ago
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying "this is exactly what mathematicians do", it's insulting.
17.
by tripzilch 25d ago
What if it talked like GPT-2?
18.
by tripzilch 25d ago
You're confusing language use with intelligence. Fair enough, they were fine-tuned to do that, but still. Great that it has some 700 dimensional model of language. If that is a sign of super intelligence, then so is an encyclopedia? Al
19.
by tripzilch 25d ago
> have no ego and don't boast Yes they do, and they famously do it quite a lot. > they will tell me my code sux if it does If they knew when code sux, someone should write an agentic loop around that.
20.
by tripzilch 25d ago
Ehm it's literally every cell in my body. We can't simulate a living cell, we're orders of magnitude off before we can do that, the onus is on you to make an argument that it is in fact, remotely similar to what you descr
21.
by tripzilch 25d ago
Maybe. I dunno. But it's also something worth to care deeply about.
22.
by tripzilch 25d ago
Well they're language models. You can't capture the human experience in language. Simple as that. > Is your opinion that these kinds of things are not possible for AI in general, or that these things might be possible but we&#x
23.
by tripzilch 25d ago
You're conflating a discussion about current LLM capabilities with your fantasies about nonexistent future AI. LLMs act nothing like this, and the small example you're giving is only a small part of the things that LLMs can't
24.
by tripzilch 25d ago
> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. This is only a very very small part of what human mathematicians actually do. This is just a lack of imagination and/or self
25.
by tripzilch 25d ago
> As software, creative works, science, etc become more and more contributed via AI does that mean all future works will not be copyrighted or patented? No, just the stuff from people who think whatever they prompted from an AI is a cont
26.
by tripzilch 25d ago
> Deleting data securely involves overwriting all the previously allocated filesystem blocks with random data. No one should be able to discern that now-empty space had data in it as of some specific recent datetime. If it was like a HDD
27.
by tripzilch 26d ago
are "understood" by whom? hah, the American constitution isn't even codified, it's practically a religious scripture, even in this very thread there's people re-interpreting, arguing and/or trying to re-explain
28.
by tripzilch 28d ago
I dunno it depends. Letting people know we're not interested in consuming their slop (code, blogs, docs, whatever), that it is revolting to us, should hopefully make them stop peddling it to us. I'm not trying to "make AI go
29.
by tripzilch 28d ago
I think you'll find it's mostly effort.
30.
by tripzilch 29d ago
> when people aren't told an image or text is AI generated, on average they prefer it to human created content uhm this is so heavily dependent on the kind, type and model of AI used that I'm calling you out on making this &quo

More ›